[RFC]: Is MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER still being used or should it be phased out?

[RFC]: Is MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER still being used or should it be phased out?

[Hans Henry von Tresckow]

(sorry for the repost, but I forgot the RFC tag the first time)

I am trying to fix http://bugs.openembedded.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3969.

I basicaly have two options here:

1) simply replace MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER with task-base-extended in the
affected recipie

2) come up with a different solution that preserves MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER
and adds a suitable definition

It seems that a lot of recent image recipies have used approach #1 and I was
wondering if MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER  was still actively being used or if it
is mostly left over from the initial task-base switchover.

Also, if it is still in use, do any of the current users care about
opie-image in particular?

(I will use #1 if I don't hear back soon)

Thank you very much,

-- 
Henry von Tresckow (hvontres)

Poodle life support team

Re: [RFC]: Is MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER still being used or should it be phased out?

[José Bernardo Bandos Rodrigues]

I do use and build for personal use opie-image frequently. Will this break
it, or the replace should go smoothly?

On 3/10/08, Hans Henry von Tresckow <hvontres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (sorry for the repost, but I forgot the RFC tag the first time)
>
> I am trying to fix http://bugs.openembedded.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3969.
>
> I basicaly have two options here:
>
> 1) simply replace MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER with task-base-extended in the
> affected recipie
>
> 2) come up with a different solution that preserves MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER
> and adds a suitable definition
>
> It seems that a lot of recent image recipies have used approach #1 and I
> was
> wondering if MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER  was still actively being used or if it
> is mostly left over from the initial task-base switchover.
>
> Also, if it is still in use, do any of the current users care about
> opie-image in particular?
>
> (I will use #1 if I don't hear back soon)
>
> Thank you very much,
>
>
> --
> Henry von Tresckow (hvontres)
>
> Poodle life support team
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: [RFC]: Is MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER still being used or should it be phased out?

[Hans Henry von Tresckow]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28 AM, José Bernardo Bandos Rodrigues <
bernardo@bandos.net> wrote:

> I do use and build for personal use opie-image frequently. Will this break
> it, or the replace should go smoothly?


This should not break anything. It should fix some packaging issues for
machines without builtin wi-fi.



-- 
Henry von Tresckow (hvontres)

Re: [RFC]: Is MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER still being used or should it be phased out?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hans Henry von Tresckow schreef:
| (sorry for the repost, but I forgot the RFC tag the first time)
|
| I am trying to fix http://bugs.openembedded.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3969.
|
| I basicaly have two options here:
|
| 1) simply replace MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER with task-base-extended in the
| affected recipie
|
| 2) come up with a different solution that preserves MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER
| and adds a suitable definition
|
| It seems that a lot of recent image recipies have used approach #1 and
I was
| wondering if MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER  was still actively being used or if it
| is mostly left over from the initial task-base switchover.

A while ago I decided for myself it's up to the person creating the
image recipe what to use. Recipes are cheap, so you could just create an
opie-vontres-image.bb and have it added to the autobuilder.

regards,

Koen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFH1ryeMkyGM64RGpERAtGXAKC2eD+cSjU+kxPwGKbTo9D7fnPHWwCgiqdg
4V+FO4Y7ohOEz8v2/TrBuq0=
=gNVi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----